Java Official Documentation Error?

[afunuks]

I'm total a newbie to Java, but I think I found something wrong with the documentation concerning with methods coming with object String.

URL:String (Java 2 Platform SE v1.4.2)

The method I'm referring to is indexOf with parameters of a char and a int indicating the index of the char to start the search. It says:
" If it is greater than the length of this string, it has the same effect as if it were equal to the length of this string: -1 is returned."

Here I think it should be put:
" If it is greater than the length of this string minus 1, it has the same effect as if it were equal to the length of this string: -1 is returned."

Since the last char in the String is with index of length()-1, so if fromIndex=length()-1 there is a hope if the last one is just the prey. If it is greater than that, there is definitely no hope, as same as to equal to length. Greater than is definitely not greater or equal than, is it?:mad:

So did I put it correct? If I'm wrong at any point, please tell me. I found the index extremely recalcitrant, so I wish to tackle this problem.

[doWhile]

Best way to answer this is to try it yourself. Write a test case and see that the behavior is what the javadoc says it is. This makes perfect sense to me. The length of the string is out of bounds, and anything great will behave the same way.

[j2me64]

i suppose you do it right. in java the indexes are usually zero-based.

[JosAH]

Yup, that was kind of sloppy; it better should've read 'if it was greater or equal to the length of the String'.

kind regards,

Jos

[pbrockway2]

It looks OK to me.

There are three cases to be considered:

(a) (Strictly) Greater than length: proceed as if equal to length
(b) Equal to length: return -1
(c) Otherwise: return index of match

The statement "If it is greater than the length of this string, it has the same effect as if it were equal to the length of this string: -1 is returned." contains within itself the statement of what will happen when it is equal to length. So the statement is exactly equivalent to "If it is greater than or equal to..." or "If it greater than length-1..."

If it was sloppy it was so only to the extent that it was clumsy.

[pbrockway2]

The 1.6 documentation not only adopts the more transparent "if it greater than or equal to" but also deals with the case that the index is negative. (So I was wrong: there are four cases...)

The most important thing is also highlighted: any (int) value whatsoever may be used as an argument without error.

[afunuks]

The 1.6 documentation not only adopts the more transparent "if it greater than or equal to" but also deals with the case that the index is negative. (So I was wrong: there are four cases...)

The most important thing is also highlighted: any (int) value whatsoever may be used as an argument without error.

That make sense!! I mean it just gives you a clue what it will behave when it is greater than length.